If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

"A federal court Wednesday upheld Hawaii’s definition of marriage as one man and one woman. The court rejected a lawsuit that sought to tear down the state’s law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman and Hawaii’s constitutional amendment that gives the legislature the power to maintain the timeless definition.

...In its order in Jackson v. Abercrombie, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii concluded, “Throughout history and societies, marriage has been connected with procreation and childrearing…. It follows that it is not beyond rational speculation to conclude that fundamentally altering the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions might result in undermining the societal understanding of the link between marriage, procreation, and family structure.”

“In this situation,” the court continued, “to suddenly constitutionalize the issue of same-sex marriage ‘would short-circuit’ the legislative actions that have been taking place in Hawaii…. Accordingly, because Hawaii’s marriage laws are rationally related to legitimate government interests, they do not violate the federal Constitution.”

The way I am reading it, the ruling is simply Judge Kay passing the buck to the inevitable contest in the Ninth Circuit and then perhaps to the Supreme Court.

Yeah, you just keep thinking that princess. While you're at it why don't you try and make pigs fly....should have the same luck with that as getting the Supreme Court to rule in your favor in your life time.

Solve a man's problem with violence and help him for a day. Teach a man how to solve his problems with violence, help him for a lifetime - Belkar Bitterleaf

Yeah, you just keep thinking that princess. While you're at it why don't you try and make pigs fly....should have the same luck with that as getting the Supreme Court to rule in your favor in your life time.

In his Perry ruling, Judge Walker cited both Romer and Lawrence, arguing that their logic leads inexorably to a finding that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right. One jurist who agrees is Justice Antonin Scalia, who sharply dissented in Lawrence (citations omitted):

Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct, and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), "[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring," what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution"? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case "does not involve" the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court.

In his Perry ruling, Judge Walker cited both Romer and Lawrence, arguing that their logic leads inexorably to a finding that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right. One jurist who agrees is Justice Antonin Scalia, who sharply dissented in Lawrence (citations omitted):

Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct, and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), "[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring," what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution"? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case "does not involve" the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court.

And? This doesn't change the fact that you want special rights for a chosen, not genetic, behavior.

Solve a man's problem with violence and help him for a day. Teach a man how to solve his problems with violence, help him for a lifetime - Belkar Bitterleaf

And? This doesn't change the fact that you want special rights for a chosen, not genetic, behavior.

I understand that you are conceding, but to make it clear to the audience you said:

Yeah, you just keep thinking that princess. While you're at it why don't you try and make pigs fly....should have the same luck with that as getting the Supreme Court to rule in your favor in your life time.

I think there is considerable reason to believe that the Supreme Court will rule correctly and nullify those laws which discriminate against gay people.

By the way, your "chosen not genetic" routine is stupid and dated. It simply doesn't make sense, which shows you up for the mindless follower that you are.

In his Perry ruling, Judge Walker cited both Romer and Lawrence, arguing that their logic leads inexorably to a finding that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right. One jurist who agrees is Justice Antonin Scalia, who sharply dissented in Lawrence (citations omitted):

Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct, and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), "[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring," what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution"? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case "does not involve" the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court.

You keep citing this as if it means that Scalia is going to vote to mandate that the states permit gay marriage. He wrote this in dissent, because he sees the precedent as absurd and emphatically disagrees with it. He is exposing the illogic of the decision, not agreeing with it, and certainly not committing to advancing it.

I understand that you are conceding, but to make it clear to the audience you said:

Yeah, you just keep thinking that princess. While you're at it why don't you try and make pigs fly....should have the same luck with that as getting the Supreme Court to rule in your favor in your life time.

I think there is considerable reason to believe that the Supreme Court will rule correctly and nullify those laws which discriminate against gay people.

By the way, your "chosen not genetic" routine is stupid and dated. It simply doesn't make sense, which shows you up for the mindless follower that you are.

One supreme court judge's opinion does not legal decision make Nova. And you must have a difference definition of conceding than I do....whatever makes you feel good I guess.

The only mindless follower here is you Nova. There is no proof that there is any "Gay gene" in humans and therefore being gay is a lifestyle choice. Just because you believe there is does not make it so. Too bad that you're such a brainwashed fool you can't see this. Now, if you can show proof of such a thing from an unbiased source, then I might listen to you. But, since you have a knack of not backing up what you say with any facts I know this will not happen.

Last edited by Zathras; 08-10-2012 at 05:02 PM.

Solve a man's problem with violence and help him for a day. Teach a man how to solve his problems with violence, help him for a lifetime - Belkar Bitterleaf